What is wrong with the movie industry?

[Instant K4rma]

Eh, I just think Scorsese needs to keep making movies. Problem solved.

 

[Rockchimp69]

Snip

Yeah I understand what you mean, as you see more movies you start to lean more towards the intellectual side of movies, that's called maturing. I didn't disagree with that point, it's just that if movies were as simple as "good" and "bad", then a good movie would be universally liked.

You can't say that certain people's views are wrong and others are right because movies are not something which exist beyond sentient life.

Also the matter of us not talking about different life forms, I completely disagree.
Why would this topic be limited to humans just because we are humans? I'm pretty sure this topic is universal to any life form which has art.

Well, it's pointless to talk about life-forms which we know nothing about and will, likely, never know anything about. As it is now, they're irrelevant.

Anyway, I think we both understand what we're saying, only I think that there can be no improvement as long as the people with no "education" in any given art are the ones deciding its direction. The Hangover 2 happened not to be an improvement in any form.

Ok I agree. I guess I should summarise that what I meant was that I think a movie with no depth or intellectual value can still have some entertainment value and therefore can't be called a bad film.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Well I didn't see it.
And I don't plan to.
Never saw Transformers 2 either...

 

[tigermilk]

Gone are the Godfather's, the Blade Runner's, and the Taxi Driver's of our day.

To be fair these films weren't without studio interference and conflict. About eight directors turned down adapting The Godfather, while there was studio interest due to the huge success of the book the budget was so small they struggled to find a director. It made $130 million so Coppola negotiated complete creative freedom for the sequel (which was a relative flop). Once the first two Godfathers became canonised within film history and as high points of post-classical Hollywood and steady interest in the films was consistent over eighteen years did the studio offer Coppola the chance to make a second sequel.
Blade Runner was commissioned because the studio wanted another Star Wars, it was released a year before 'Return of the Jedi' and two years after 'Empire Strikes Back', needless to say the studio (and audiences) were not hugely impressed (analysis of the critical response at the time shows the film was not as hated as popular mythology would suggest). It would be 1992 before the directors cut which gained momentum and became acknowledged as a classic.
Scorsese has wanted to make Taxi Driver since the early seventies. He had to prove his worth to the studios with Mean Streets and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore before being trusted with the project (and budget) by the studio.

Personally I do think that American studio/mainstream cinema is going through a creative lull at the moment. The last great period being the late nineties/early millenium with a cycle of "Indiewood"/indie-aesthetic films such as 'Magnolia', 'The Ice Storm', 'American Beauty', 'Election', 'Donnie Darko' building upon more "independent" works such as 'Safe', 'Welcome to the Dollshouse', 'Happiness' etc. Outside of this cycle there was 'Fight Club' and 'The Matrix' securing largeish budgets and intelligent scripts.

I think in retrospect it is easy to fetishise 'golden periods' of film history without acknowlodging the studio input/influence (the late nineties cycle reflect studio wilingness to put up small amounts of money expecting moderate profits). Even within this cycle there is risk limitation, Dreamworks originally wanted to make 'American Beauty' for $7.5 million and have Mike Nicholls ('Whose afraid of Virginia Woolf' and The Graduate) to direct. Alan Ball fought Dreamworks for Sam Mendes, a first time director due to a desire to take more risks and also had to battle for a budget of $15 million.

Success tends to breed copycats be it 'The Sound of Mucic' in 1967 spawning a number of high budget musical flops, through to 'Gladiator'(2000) and the sequel to 'The Hangover' and to be honest if I was a share holder in a studio I would want whatever films make me the most money to be made be it a cycle of euro-existential-lite films from (very approximatly) 1967-1980 or Pirates of the Carribean 4.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

*sigh* and facepalm all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you apparently find fault that people have different opinions than yourself.

FYI, having different opinions is not something that bothers me. You have misunderstood me there.

Seems that way to me.

You called anyone who like The Hangover II an idiot. So yeah, you do seem to have a problem with differing opinions.

Hell, The Hangover II didn't even look any good to me, but people like you rub me the wrong way.

 

[marfin_]

IDK,some peoples minds just shut down whenever they watch movies.

 

[Waaghpowa]

In one word picture? This (The Hangover Part II score):

A little explanation here: this is taken from rottentomatoes.com; one of the most popular movie websites (along with IMDB and Metacritic). The left side are the critics, the right side are the (other) moviegoers. 35% of the critics liked the movie with an average score of 5 (out of 10). 94% of the audience liked it with an average of 4.6 (out of 5).

The US Box Office is $185.8 million, making it the biggest movie hit this year.

What is wrong with the movie industry? Correction, what is wrong with you guys? You all went to the movie theater to see it and loved it? This movie is an exact replica of the first movie; no originality, no improvements, no story, no nothing. It's a dumb and senseless movie only made to extract as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. This is a 100% cash cow movie.

To be honest I find it kinda depressing that a movie like this does so well. This will give a green light to another sequel. Heck, this has painfully proven you can just copy old successes to make easy money. We will not see the end of this when people keep going to movies like this and keep liking it.

Discuss

Though it may already have been mentioned, I believe it's partly due to ignorance. I wont go as far as to say that people have bad taste or dumb. Part of the reason why I haven't seen a whole lot of movies lately is because nothing looks good and every movie comes off as uninteresting or just a hopeless cash in on topic/genre A, B or C. Like the most recent X men movie. Most recent movie I've seen, it was ok, but not great and it was likely made so that Fox can keep the rights to Xmen before Marvel picks it back up which = cash in.

I found it funny when Billy Bob Thorton said that video games are the reason there are bad movies lately.
My response: No, there are bad movies, because all Hollywood is doing is pumping out films for the sake of making money. Like Fast 5. Really? Did we really need another one? Their making a 6th one, because 5 made so much money, despite the fact it wasn't even good. Same thing with Pirates of the Carribean. Surely it doesn't help that people are paying to see it, but it's not entirely the populations fault. Sure there's ignorance, but in a society where popular media is one of the main sources of information for the layman, it's easy for things to get tarted up to looking better than it actually is.

Now Green Lantern on the other hand, MAY be pretty good. I'm not a big fan of DC or comic books in general for that matter, so my opinion on it is rather objective by comparison. My favourite Comic book movies were already made and were all rather good.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World, Constantine, Punisher: Warzone, Watchmen, 300, Sin City and Blade (though blade 2 and 3 were meh).

 

[4RM3D]

Seems that way to me.

You called anyone who like The Hangover II an idiot. So yeah, you do seem to have a problem with differing opinions.

Hell, The Hangover II didn't even look any good to me, but people like you rub me the wrong way.

It seems you didn't bother to read the other replies in this thread as everything has already been explained.

Regardless of that, I initially only said I find it wrong. However that isn't limited to just idiocy. It could mean anything. But people just started assuming things, which is okay. What isn't okay, is that people won't look past the assumption and make it out to be the only truth.

 

[artanis_neravar]

In one word picture? This (The Hangover Part II score):

A little explanation here: this is taken from rottentomatoes.com; one of the most popular movie websites (along with IMDB and Metacritic). The left side are the critics, the right side are the (other) moviegoers. 35% of the critics liked the movie with an average score of 5 (out of 10). 94% of the audience liked it with an average of 4.6 (out of 5).

The US Box Office is $185.8 million, making it the biggest movie hit this year.

What is wrong with the movie industry? Correction, what is wrong with you guys? You all went to the movie theater to see it and loved it? This movie is an exact replica of the first movie; no originality, no improvements, no story, no nothing. It's a dumb and senseless movie only made to extract as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. This is a 100% cash cow movie.

To be honest I find it kinda depressing that a movie like this does so well. This will give a green light to another sequel. Heck, this has painfully proven you can just copy old successes to make easy money. We will not see the end of this when people keep going to movies like this and keep liking it.

Discuss

I watched it and loved it because it made me laugh, I don't always care about story or originality, or improvement (no nothing makes absolutely no sense, it just means that it is/has something). I wanted to laugh, hard, for an hour or two. Hangover 2 did that for me. Not every movie needs to be original, if I want a movie with a plot I watch one. Every movie has it's place in the world whether it be a stupid comedy, or an intellectual flick.

Also it seems that most people don't want to see the end of this, considering they like them. Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, maybe you should watch what you like, and let other people watch what they like. You see how upset/angry you got when you felt that these movies are taking away from movies you like? Well what you are talking about here is doing the exact same thing you don't like to everyone else.

 

[FalloutJack]

Discuss

Well, on the ME front, I didn't see either of them, so the audience you're questioning does not include guys who need more than a few cheap laughs to go to the theater. So, the question is 'What is wrong with all the people that're lower on the totem poll than Jack?'. But then, when you phrase it like THAT, you sort of get the idea that the question holds an answer in of itself.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Yep, because a movie isn't good unless its grey, dark, entire cast filled with British people, or isn't made by Christopher Nolan.

Seriously, why do you care so much? Maybe people like comedies? Ever thought of that? Because sometimes I don't really want to watch a movie filled with social commentary or old people jerking each other off.

When I watch a movie, I want to relax. I want to laugh. You guys are making it seem like movies nowadays are entering the dark ages.

Also, Citizen Kane was BORIIIIING!

 

[Conza]

In one word picture? This (The Hangover Part II score):

A little explanation here: this is taken from rottentomatoes.com; one of the most popular movie websites (along with IMDB and Metacritic). The left side are the critics, the right side are the (other) moviegoers. 35% of the critics liked the movie with an average score of 5 (out of 10). 94% of the audience liked it with an average of 4.6 (out of 5).

The US Box Office is $185.8 million, making it the biggest movie hit this year.

What is wrong with the movie industry? Correction, what is wrong with you guys? You all went to the movie theater to see it and loved it? This movie is an exact replica of the first movie; no originality, no improvements, no story, no nothing. It's a dumb and senseless movie only made to extract as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. This is a 100% cash cow movie.

To be honest I find it kinda depressing that a movie like this does so well. This will give a green light to another sequel. Heck, this has painfully proven you can just copy old successes to make easy money. We will not see the end of this when people keep going to movies like this and keep liking it.

Discuss

Interesting post OP (original poster).

I didn't see the first or second movie, but my experience in general is, if it's not broken, don't fix it. You make something, people like it, you make something similar, people still like it, you win both times, cha-ching.

If you had an idea about a movie, where everyone gets drunk, has a 'hang over' then resolves the aftermath of the previous night out (which I'll assume based on what I know to be the case with both these movies), why not?

Who's it harming here? Yes I know, you've probably read that last sentence in your mind and thought 'everybody', because we make lesser quality movies, then the public accepts these lesser quality movies, and more are made as a result, so the movie industry and the public both lose, I know, I do get your point, and it is quite valid.

But people have a right to be stupid, most people are! I mean c'mon, who the hell has such a limited IQ, that they find reality TV entertaining? I remember when I was younger, watching it at the begining, I was vaguely curious of the first survivor, the first big brother, and the rest, but after that, I wished I appreciated my sitcoms more when I had them!

What about popular music? 'Yuk'! Who 'is' two-bit enough, to listen to a "rapper" claim to be a gangster, when he doesn't even know the true meaning of the word, then go on to sing about, oh, just the really important things in life, like cars, 'hoes' and money, yeah, deep stuff there. People are stupid!

Just plain stupid! and I really think this is what it all comes down to here. Luckily, stupid people can be influenced, which is why when a truely great film comes out, they'll be a hook for the masses, then the stupid will come and watch it, they'll learn something and enjoy themselves. That's a better scenario, influence them into liking higher quality music, television and movies.

Ultimately, this means marketing, and adding superficial things in movies, to get the masses attention, like special affects, ridiculous action, but keep good writing and cinematography, as it is very important, we can only hope more movies in the future do focus more on what a good movie is really about, and hopefully we won't end up with another f*cking disaster, like we did with Star Trek XI (hmm, did the masses like that? Yeah I think they did).